Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/15/2003 03:12 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 10-NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Requesting the United States Congress to support the speedy deployment of a national missile defense system. Number 1595 HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, Alaska State Legislature, presented HJR 10 on behalf of Representative McGuire, sponsor. Turning attention back to approximately 1989, he offered that the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) [officially dissolved in 1991], while ultimately a good thing, had an incredibly destabilizing effect on world politics. He said a geopolitical system governed by two competing superpowers and the nuclear policy of mutually assured destruction, while tenuous and disquieting, had created a great deal of stability in nuclear proliferation. Since collapse of the USSR, however, the world has been confronted by a new threat of so-called rogue nations that now possess nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities; the closest of these new threats to Alaska, in particular, is North Korea. MR. HILYARD cited an interview in the Capital City Weekly in which U.S. Senator Ted Stevens said about North Korea that its new missile is capable of going a lot farther than [North Korea] has acknowledged, that it has made warheads that carry chemical and biological weapons, and that this is cause for worry. Mr. Hilyard also quoted President Bush as saying [during his 2000 campaign] that America's development of a missile defense is a search for security, not a search for advantage. MR. HILYARD pointed out that committee packets include a copy of H.R. 1453, sponsored by Congressman David Vitter of Louisiana, which Mr. Hilyard said [HJR 10] essentially mirrors. He read the body of the congressional bill, which stated: The Secretary of Defense shall direct the Director of the Missile Defense Agency of the Department of Defense to design and deploy as soon as technologically possible a land-based and sea-based missile defense system capable of defending the national territory of the United States against ballistic missile attack. MR. HILYARD said this is one of the White House's priorities in terms of revitalizing the national military. Number 1415 STACEY FRITZ, No Nukes North, informed members that No Nukes North is a 503(c)(3) nonprofit organization that seeks to promote educated opposition to missile defense. She explained that she'd recently finished her graduate thesis on the subject of missile defense at the [University of Alaska Fairbanks]. Agreeing with much of what was stated about the end of the Cold War and the subsequent instability and nuclear proliferation, she also agreed that North Korea poses a nuclear threat and that terrorists in rogue nations are acquiring nuclear weapons. She said, however: What I see as a main problem with this entire debate is that no one's been asked the question, "What is the best way to address those threats?" They simply assume that building a missile defense system is the best way to do that, and I would certainly argue that that is not the case. Number 1335 MS. FRITZ highlighted the fact that the first "WHEREAS" clause in HJR 10 relates to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and says the USSR no longer exists. She told members: I think it's curious that it was included in this resolution because, as many people know, the United States has already unilaterally abandoned this treaty. And I think that it's also, even though the treaty no longer exists, still worth pointing out that [with regard to] this logic for abandoning this treaty - stating that it was signed by the country that no longer exists - certainly President Bush Sr. affirmed that Russia ... inherited the treaties that the USSR had signed. And if we were to apply this kind of logic to all the treaties that the USSR had signed, Russia would no longer have to abide by World War II boundary agreements or the Geneva Protocol of 1925. So while people might argue that there are reasons for abandoning the ABM, "that the USSR does not exist" I don't think is a very good one. And I would argue that the reasons that we signed the treaty in 1972 are just as strong today as they were then, and that was to prevent an unstoppable and very expensive arms race. ... We could argue all day about whether or not the ... missile defense system should be deployed. But I think that the main thing that should concern Alaskans, if our state is going to support this system, is whether or not this system works. And I think it has been made very clear, through the testing program, that it does not work. And I would go ... so far as to say that it cannot work. And I'm not a physicist. However, there were 15 Nobel laureates who signed a letter to Congress affirming that this system would never work. It's a technical loser because it cannot defend us against very simple countermeasures. So it will never be technologically feasible in the real world. Certainly, we have demonstrated, in a few of the tests ... that were not completely rigged, that we do have the capability to intercept [an] enemy missile with hit-to-kill technology, but that doesn't say anything about this system working in the real world. CHAIR LYNN asked that Ms. Fritz limit her testimony to another minute. Number 1120 MS. FRITZ agreed to try to sum it up, but emphasized the importance of this issue. She said the system as it is, with the kinetic hit-to-kill interceptor, is incapable of defending against (indisc.) and countermeasures that could be within an enemy missile. In order to be "militarily realistic," she proposed the need to recognize that there will be serious consideration of returning to the use of nuclear tips on these interceptors. She cautioned that if this resulted in having nuclear-tipped interceptors at Fort Greely, the use of those would spread radiation. CHAIR LYNN interjected and thanked Ms. Fritz for her testimony. Number 1081 RYAN TINSLEY, Member, Fairbanks Coalition for Peace and Justice, testified on the fiscal aspects of this [missile defense] system. Noting that since 1983 the U.S. has spent $95 billion on mission defense deployment and still has no workable system, he told members that the "Star Wars" system envisioned by President Bush will cost at least $200 billion more - with more estimates by the Bush Administration itself already as high as $258 billion. MR. TINSLEY mentioned the current federal fiscal [deficit] and reminded members that Congress has cut veteran-disability funding, while more than $400 billion a year is spent on [defense]. He mentioned social services including health care, education, and social security, as well as funding for what he considers more reasonable defense systems. He said [U.S. Senator] Ted Stevens has asked police and fire departments to work overtime without pay. Mr. Tinsley concluded by asking, "When we are spending so much on defense and we have no money for social services, ... what cost does this national missile defense system come with? What are we going to be defending when we have no education, no health care, and no social services?" Number 0947 STEVE CLEARY, Organizer, Citizens Opposed to Defense Experimentation (CODE); Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG), informed the committee that CODE, a 10-member coalition, has been bringing up the dangers the missile defense system will pose to Alaska. He noted Alaska's long history of use as a military test site - as seen at Amchitka in the late 1960s and 1970s - and as a toxic dump, since more than 600 military toxic sites are yet to be cleaned up. He told the committee: We're worried that bringing an unproven technology to this state will expose Alaska and Alaskans to potential threats. We saw ... a botched launch from Kodiak have to be exploded a minute after takeoff. Well, if that happens out near Fort Greely, we know the pipeline's only a few miles away from there, and it might put one of our major infrastructure systems ... in jeopardy. We're also concerned that it's going to give the U.S. a false sense of security, since, as you've heard, ... the missile defense system has not been proven effective. And also, as Mr. Tinsley was saying, there are other threats and other needs to be addressed. The CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] even suggests that this is ... the least likely threat, an intercontinental ballistic missile. So I believe our money would be better spent on helping veterans who have already - and are already - suffering, and with other unmet homeland security needs. I was disappointed to see the legislature pass a resolution in support of a railroad [to Fort Greely], again, ... that we might have to fund to Fort Greely when we don't know that this system is proven and we don't know where that money is coming from. Number 0801 CHAIR LYNN asked whether anyone else wished to testify; he then closed public testimony. REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered that from the information he'd received, there are no nuclear-tipped weapons. He asked what level of expertise Ms. Fritz has in talking about highly technical areas. MS. FRITZ answered that she isn't a physicist, but has spent the past four years researching this subject for her master's degree, which she has received. With regard to nuclear tips, she reported that she works closely with Michael Roston, an analyst with the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council in Washington, D.C.; he has informed her that although within the missile defense budget it is no longer legal for study of nuclear-tipped interceptors to go on, study does continue in other (indisc.). She offered to obtain more information for the committee. Number 0649 REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Tinsley what he would consider a reasonable national defense system. MR. TINSLEY acknowledged the complexity of that question, and said he believes a more realistic threat would be something that comes into the ports; he said the money would be better spent in beefing up port security, for one thing. He also expressed concern about removing money from potential foreign aid, which he indicated perhaps could change the views of terrorists and others in foreign countries; he suggested that perhaps disseminating some of this money to have-nots in other countries might keep the U.S. from needing to defend and fortify itself against them. REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked how much foreign aid the U.S. should have given Osama bin Laden to prevent [the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001]. MR. TINSLEY answered: I think that, first of all, maybe the CIA should have considered not training Osama bin Laden and not funding the Taliban, as well as not funding ... and putting Saddam Hussein into power [in Iraq] and not selling him the chemical weapons and not okaying the use of chemical weapons in [the] Iran-Iraq war with the [United Nations (UN)] resolution. ... I think that we need to seriously consider how we conduct ourselves in ... foreign affairs. Number 0425 CHAIR LYNN asked whether there was any committee discussion; none was offered. Number 0414 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to report HJR 10 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note; she requested unanimous consent. There being no objection, HJR 10 was reported from the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|